CHARACTER PRESERVATION (BAROSSA VALLEY) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 19 September.)

Clause 3.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This was a test clause for the opposition amendments. I indicated when we last sat I would not be moving the amendments deleting clause 8 from the government's bill which prohibits land subdivision; we would leave that in. Even though I was reasonably comfortable that our provisions would have left the current development plans in place, there was obviously some concern in the McLaren Vale bill that that was not secure enough, and that is why I have suggested that we will not be moving those amendments and give members some extra comfort.

Now that the representatives of Family First and the Greens are here, I would urge them to think long and hard about supporting this new proposition from the opposition. It does provide an opportunity to have smaller government and less government interference and leave it for the locals to manage. With those few words, I do hope that they see the wisdom of my new amendments and support them.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government still opposes the amendment. We note that the opposition has made some small changes, but it still has not fundamentally changed our concerns, and it will still have unintended consequences by setting up a stand-off between the state and local governments.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens have considered the position put forward by the Liberal opposition that, by removing the most offensive of the provisions, it may well open the door for us to be able to support the remainder of their amendments. Sadly, I have to say that that is not the case, and the position that the Greens are taking with this bill is the same position that we took with the companion McLaren Vale bill.

I might just say, to be really clear, the key elements of this bill—what we need to make sure we keep in place—are the sanctity of what I have been calling the 'Texta colour lines' (the boundary) and making sure that parliament does have the final say over that, and we need to make sure that subdivisions, which are the key driver of urban sprawl, are banned.

Whilst there is a whole range of other things upon which the Hon. David Ridgway and the Greens do agree, such as reforms that are necessary to the planning system—sadly, reforms that the Liberals have voted against over the last 6½ years whenever I have introduced them, but I think now that—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Liberals are slow learners, but they have seen that the Greens do have some good ideas in relation to planning law. When these reforms come back, I am sure that they will be looked upon favourably by the opposition, and they will be keen to have these new tools that the Greens envisage when they become the government. For now, the position we are taking on all of these amendments is that we will be supporting and opposing the amendments as we did in the McLaren Vale bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I will not spend much time on this; I appreciate the genuine desire of the Hon. David Ridgway, from his point of view. This bill has a number of weaknesses which we have identified and, had the government looked at some of the things in the bill which I put up before the last election and which honourable members supported, it would have addressed quite a lot of that anyway, because it would have had local people actually involved in the long-term future of the character and preservation.

The government chose not to take that part of the bill that we had put up. On behalf of Family First, I cannot support any risk factors with respect to the key issue here; that is, to stop any further urban sprawl and subdivision. Therefore, Family First will not be in a position to support the Hon. David Ridgway. To expedite matters, Mr Chair, I advise you that, with the exception of possibly one amendment that we may look at during the deliberation on this bill, we will be putting up our amendments as they were passed with the McLaren Vale bill.

We will not be expecting to see amendments that I put up which were not passed—that will be status quo—as with any other amendments put forward by the government and the Greens. To summarise, we will be basically rubberstamping this one, with the work already having been done in the McLaren Vale bill.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway's amendment negatived; the Hon. G.E. Gago's amendment carried.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate, in line with the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's indication, that I will not be moving any of my further amendments. That was a test clause to see whether we could get a much more sensible bill but, sadly, common sense will not prevail here today and we will be going down the government's path.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 2, lines 16 and 17 [clause 3(1), definition of prescribed day]—Delete the definition of prescribed day

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 2, line 19 [clause 3(1), definition of relevant authority]—Delete:

or a provision of this Act

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 2, after line 21 [clause 3(1)]—After the definition of relevant authority insert:

relevant council means a council whose area includes part of the district;

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 3, lines 1 to 4 [clause 3(1), definition of residential development]—Delete the definition and substitute:

residential development means development primarily for residential purposes but does not include—

(a) the use of land for the purposes of a hotel or motel or to provide any other form of temporary residential accommodation for valuable consideration; or

(b) a dwelling for residential purposes on land used primarily for primary production purposes;

rural area means the area of the district not including townships;

rural living area means an area marked as a rural living area in the plan deposited in the General Registry Office at Adelaide and numbered GP 4 of 2012 (being the plan as it exists on 26 June 2012);

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 3, line 7 [clause 3(1), definition of township]—Delete 'the prescribed day' and substitute:

26 June 2012

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 3, line 9 [clause 3(2)]—After 'characteristics of the district' insert:

and locations within the district

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 4 passed.

New clause 4A.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 3, after line 15—After clause 4 insert:

4A—Administration of Act

This Act is to be administered by the Minister responsible for the administration of the Development Act 1993.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government is supporting the amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 3, line 31 [clause 6(1)(a)]—After 'rural' insert:

and natural

Page 4, line 3 [clause 6(2)(b)]—Delete:

or a township under this Act

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 6A.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 4, after line 3—Insert:

6A—Development Plans relating to townships to be prepared or amended by councils

Despite Part 3 Division 2 of the Development Act 1993 (including section 24(1)(fbb) of that Act), a Development Plan, or an amendment to a Development Plan, that—

(a) applies to any part of a township; and

(b) does not apply outside the area of the council where the township is located,

may only be prepared under that Division by—

(c) the council for the area where the township is located; or

(d) the Minister (within the meaning of that Division) acting with the consent of the council for the area where the township is located.

This amendment was successful in the McLaren Vale bill and I hope it is successful again today.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: During the debate on the McLaren Vale bill, minister Gago made clear the government's concerns with amendments being moved by the Hon. Mr Ridgway and the Hon. Mark Parnell. Both amendments, in the government's view (although we are dealing with the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment now), will be problematic and unacceptable to the government.

By removing the ability for the minister to initiate a rezoning, they will, in effect, set up special enclaves within the two districts where the ordinary rules of the planning system do not apply. This would be unprecedented within our state planning system and, nationally, run counter to the leading practices recommended by the Productivity Commission. Minister Gago likened the amendments moved by the Hon. Mr Ridgway to setting up South Australia's version of Hutt River Province. I guess that the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendments could be said to be more like setting up the Vatican City State—smaller in scale but, at the end of the day, still effectively free of the rules that apply elsewhere.

The government's view is that even though the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment is more limited in its effect than the altogether much more mischievous amendments moved by the Hon. Mr Ridgway, they would still set an unfortunate precedent that should be avoided. Because of this, we will be opposing them again in relation to this bill and in the other place in relation to the McLaren Vale bill, which this chamber passed, with amendments.

However, the government acknowledges that, in putting forward his amendment, the Hon. Mr Parnell was attempting to be an honest broker—who wrote this—and put forward issues that he as a member—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: —they don't know him very well—with considerable experience in planning law, has observed in the planning system for sometime, particularly the processes around DPAs and the appropriate balance between state government, council and community interest and responsibilities in the planning system.

These are matters that the Minister for Planning has asked me to acknowledge that he takes seriously and would like to discuss further with the honourable member, and, indeed, any members who have an interest in how our planning system can be further reformed and enhanced. I note that the Hon. Mr Parnell in his remarks offered to sit down and work with all members to develop appropriate reforms to the system that would apply across the whole of the state.

That is certainly our preferred option, rather than these bespoke amendments which will create an administrative burden on the department to manage. Land use—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Well, that's not me, is it? Land use planning is a core policy concern of this government, as members would know. For several years now we have driven an agenda of reform and change to our planning system that has earned this state respect and acknowledgment across the country, and we are absolutely open to continuing that process in consultation and partnership with members in this place.

Indeed, as members will note, the government yesterday announced that we will be bringing forward planning reform legislation to address issues in relation to housing approvals, enabling a more streamlined assessment process for low risk, low impact residential development, a very important reform and one that has been welcomed by the housing industry at an industry round table hosted by the Premier on Tuesday.

As I have already mentioned, the minister is prepared to sit down with the Hon. Mr Parnell and other members to talk about potential system-wide reforms to the planning system that could be pursued. Should discussions with members bear fruit with proposals acceptable to the government with broad cross-party support, the minister has indicated that he would be prepared to bring forward further legislation in due course.

However, the government cannot support an amendment at this stage which would effectively put in place an administratively burdensome bespoke amendment; and in the other place the cognate amendment passed by this chamber to the McLaren Vale bill will be opposed by the government. This amendment, as the Hon. Mr Parnell himself observed in debate here and the other day, is not the ideal way to address the system-wide issues he has raised.

Indeed, the Hon. Mr Parnell acknowledged that the amendment would not resolve the fundamental problem that minister Gago raised, which is that it would result in a Mexican stand-off. While this limits the potential for that—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: —'stand-off' is better—relative to the amendments moved by the Hon. Mr Ridgway, it would still represent a suboptimal outcome for planning in this state. I urge you to oppose the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I was going to be quick, but I do need to thank the minister for his remarks and acknowledgment that the Greens do, in fact, know what we are talking about when it comes to planning. I do look forward to sitting down with the planning minister, but for now I will be—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Not the shadow minister, just the minister?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: And the shadow minister. I am suggesting, yes, a multiparty round table to which other parties and Independents are invited. I am sure that we could do great wonders with the Development Act. But for now I will proceed with this amendment, and I am hoping that all those who supported the identical amendment in the McLaren Vale bill will continue to do so. The minister has said that it is likely to end up in a deadlock conference, well, so be it. Let us talk about it some more then.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: As with the McLaren Vale bill, we will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: The same here.

New clause inserted.

Clause 7.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes this clause.

Clause negatived.

Clause 8.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 4, lines 8 to 12 [clause 8(1) and (2)]—Delete subclauses (1) and (2) and substitute:

(1) This section applies to a proposed development in the rural area that involves a division of land under the Development Act 1993 that would create 1 or more additional allotments.

(2) A relevant authority (other than the Development Assessment Commission) must not grant development authorisation to a development to which this section applies unless the Development Assessment Commission concurs in the granting of the authorisation.

(2a) No appeal under the Development Act 1993 lies against a refusal by a relevant authority to grant development authorisation to a development to which this section applies or a refusal by the Development Assessment Commission to concur in the granting of such an authorisation.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 4—

Lines 8 to 12—After proposed new subclause (2) insert:

(2aa) If the Development Assessment Commission is the relevant authority, the Development Assessment Commission must not grant development authorisation to a development to which this section applies unless the council for the area where the proposed development is situated concurs in the granting of the authorisation.

Lines 8 to 12—Proposed new subclause (2a):

After 'Development Assessment Commission' insert 'or a council'

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire's amendment to the amendment carried; the Hon. I.K. Hunter's amendment as amended carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 4—

Lines 14 to 16 [clause 8(3)(a) and (b)]—Delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute:

(a) is located in a part of the rural area other than a rural living area; and

(b) will create additional allotments to be used, for residential development,

Lines 23 to 34 [clause 8(5)]—Delete subclause (5) and substitute:

(5) If—

(a) after the commencement of this section, an application for development authorisation is made in relation to a proposed development to which this section applies; and

(b) the proposed development is located within a rural living area and will create 1 or more additional allotments to be used for residential development; and

(c) the provisions of the relevant Development Plan relating to the minimum size of allotments that are in force on the prescribed day (after the commencement of the operation of any amendments to that Development Plan that are made on that day) (the prescribed allotment provisions) provide for a larger minimum allotment size than the provisions that would otherwise apply in relation to the proposed development,

the prescribed allotment provisions will apply in relation to the proposed development despite the provisions of the Development Plan (to the extent of the inconsistency) and despite section 53(2) of the Development Act 1993.

Line 36 [clause 8(6)]—Delete 'designated' and substitute 'rural living'

After line 39—After subsection (6) insert:

(7) In this section—

prescribed day means the day on which this Act was introduced into the House of Assembly.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 8A.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

New Clause, Page 4, after line 39—After clause 8 insert:

8A—Restriction on wind farms

Despite the Development Act 1993, a proposed development in the district consisting of construction of a wind farm is non-complying development for the purposes of that Act.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition is supporting the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's wind farm banning amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens opposed it. My recollection is that it got up yesterday. It didn't get up? Well, we maintain our position; we are opposing it.

New clause negatived.

Clause 9.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 5—

Line 2 [clause 9(1)]—Delete 'involved in the administration of' and substitute:

responsible for issuing statutory authorisations under

Line 4 [clause 9(1)(a)]—Delete 'a statutory authorisation under the relevant Act' and substitute:

such a statutory authorisation

Lines 8 and 9 [clause 9(1)]—Delete "obligations imposed on the person or body under this Act"

and substitute: objects of this Act in relation to the statutory authorisation

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 5, after line 17—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) In conducting the review, the Minister must (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit) consult with, and consider any submissions of, relevant councils.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move;

Page 5, lines 18 to 21 [clause 10(2)]—Delete subclause (2) and substitute:

(2) The review must include an assessment of—

(a) the state of the district, especially taking into account the objects of this Act and any relevant provisions of the Planning Strategy; and

(b) the family, social, economic and environmental impacts of this Act; and

(c) the impact of this Act on local government in the district; and

(d) any steps that have been taken or strategies that have been implemented to address any negative impacts of this Act,

and may include such other matters as the Minister thinks fit.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government supports the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 10A.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I rise to indicate the government will not be proceeding with its amendment. As indicated in the discussion on the McLaren Vale bill, the amendment being moved consistently to both bills was included in response to concerns raised by the Barossa Council about the potential for township growth within the boundaries established by the bill. Minister Gago indicated in that debate we believe these boundaries, which reflect those in the 30-year plan, are more than adequate to cater for likely growth over the next 30 years.

Indeed, some of the townships have had enough land to grow for 70 years based on historic growth trends. However, it has become apparent in that debate that there was some concern that this provision would invite the boundaries to be reviewed routinely and imply that they would be more fluid than the government intends. In reality, this five-yearly review would mirror the five-yearly review of the act set out in clause 11 and the five-yearly review of the planning strategy required under the Development Act. In that sense, the new clause was intended to clarify that the township boundaries could be reviewed as part of those processes.

The minister has reflected on these concerns and decided that, notwithstanding this was a matter requested by The Barossa Council, it is not needed to achieve the objectives of the bill and that the matter of the township boundaries is sufficiently addressed through these other processes. Accordingly, he has asked me not to proceed with the amendment, and the government will seek to disagree with the amendments to the cognate McLaren Vale bill in the other place, in addition to disagreeing with the new clause 6A moved by the Hon. Mr Mark Parnell and inserted by the council to that bill.

I want to emphasise so that there is no ambiguity that the issue of reviewing is not the same as the issue of approving a change. These bills make that clear. No change to these boundaries can occur without parliamentary consent through legislative amendment. The new clause 10A, which would have been inserted by the amendment that I will not now proceed with, would not have altered in any way this fundamental proposition.

Clause 11.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 5, after line 27 [clause 11(1)]—Before paragraph (a) insert:

(aaa) make provision in relation to the referral of any application for development authorisation to the Development Assessment Commission for the purposes of section 8(2); and

(aa) prescribe fees in respect of any matter under this Act and provide for their payment, recovery or waiver; and

Page 6, after line 3—After subclause (3) insert:

(4) Before a regulation is made under this Act, the Minister must (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit) consult with, and consider any submissions of, relevant councils.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: There are two here which were consequential, and we won last time: [Brokenshire-1] 5 and [Brokenshire-1] 6. I move:

Page 6, line 6 [Schedule1, clause 1]—Delete 'responsible for the administration of the Development Act 1993'

Page 6, line 7 [Schedule 1, clause 1(a)]—Delete 'that Act' and substitute:

the Development Act 1993

Amendments carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 6, lines 10 and 11 [Schedule 1, clause 1(b)]—Delete ' or a township, or part of the district or a township' and substitute:

, or part of the district

Page 6, after line 16 [Schedule 1, clause 1]—After paragraph (b) insert:

and

(c) (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit) consult with, and consider any submissions of, relevant councils in relation to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Amendments carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 6, after line 16—Insert:

2—Application of Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale—Revised—Protection Districts

(1) This clause only applies to a proposed development on an allotment that existed on the prescribed day.

(2) If—

(a) it would have been possible to grant development authorisation to a proposed development in the district in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Development Plan as in force immediately before the prescribed day; but

(b) the proposed development would not be able to be granted development authorisation in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Development Plan as varied by amendments specified in the Development Plan Amendment,

those amendments will be taken not to apply in relation to the proposed development (and will be taken to have never come into operation in relation to the proposed development).

(3) If it would have been possible to grant development authorisation to a proposed development in the district in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Development Plan as in force immediately before the prescribed day, any subsequent amendment to the applicable Development Plan must preserve the ability to grant development authorisation to that proposed development.

(4) In this clause—

applicable Development Plan means the Development Plan under the Development Act 1993 that applies to the location of the proposed development;

Development Plan Amendment means the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale—Revised—Protection Districts Development Plan Amendment that came into operation on an interim basis under section 28 of the Development Act 1993 in accordance with the notice published in the Gazette on 11 April 2012;

prescribed day means 28 September 2011.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We are opposing this, I guess.

Amendment negatived; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (16:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.